Purchase Of Crop-Duster Does Not Qualify For Arkansas Agricultural Exemption | Aero-News Network
Aero-News Network
RSS icon RSS feed
podcast icon MP3 podcast
Subscribe Aero-News e-mail Newsletter Subscribe

Airborne Unlimited -- Most Recent Daily Episodes

Episode Date

Airborne-Monday

Airborne-Tuesday

Airborne-Wednesday Airborne-Thursday

Airborne-Friday

Airborne On YouTube

Airborne-Unlimited-06.23.25

Airborne-NextGen-06.24.25

AirborneUnlimited-06.25.25

Airborne-AffordableFlyers-06.26.25

AirborneUnlimited-06.27.25

Wed, Sep 07, 2016

Purchase Of Crop-Duster Does Not Qualify For Arkansas Agricultural Exemption

Ruling Issued By State's Department Of Finance And Administration

The Arkansas Department of Finance and Administration recently issued a ruling on the application of the Arkansas agricultural exemption to a taxpayer's purchase of an aircraft. The taxpayer in question operated an agricultural flying service and purchased a used aircraft outside the state and brought it into Arkansas to use in the business.

The Department conducted an audit and determined that because airplanes are specifically excluded from the definition of farm equipment and machinery, the purchase was subject to use tax and consequently assessed use tax and interest.

The taxpayer appealed, arguing that the purchase should qualify for the agricultural exemption under GR-51(B)(1)(a). This regulation defines "farm equipment and machinery" as agricultural implements used exclusively and directly for the agricultural production of food or fiber as a commercial business or the agricultural production of grass sod or nursery products as a commercial business. Although it does exclude airplanes, it specifically includes "sprayer" and "spreaders." The taxpayer contended that because the airplane was used solely in crop-dusting, it should be considered a "sprayer" or "spreader" and did not fit the meaning of "airplane" as used in applicable Arkansas statutory laws and rules.

The Appellate Court ultimately upheld the Department's assessment, finding that although the taxpayer provided evidence showing the aircraft had no function other than the application of seeds, fertilizers, and chemicals, it did fit the plain and ordinary meaning of the word airplane and, therefore, was excluded from the exemption.

(Source: Ryan Tax Services news release. Image from file)

FMI: www.ryan.com

Advertisement

More News

ANN's Daily Aero-Linx (06.29.25)

Aero Linx: Transport Canada We are a federal institution, leading the Transport Canada portfolio and working with our partners. Transport Canada is responsible for transportation p>[...]

ANN's Daily Aero-Term (06.29.25): Gross Navigation Error (GNE)

Gross Navigation Error (GNE) A lateral deviation from a cleared track, normally in excess of 25 Nautical Miles (NM). More stringent standards (for example, 10NM in some parts of th>[...]

Classic Aero-TV: Anticipating Futurespace - Blue Origin Visits Airventure 2017

From AirVenture 2017 (YouTube Edition): Flight-Proven Booster On Display At AirVenture… EAA AirVenture Oshkosh is known primarily as a celebration of experimental and amateu>[...]

NTSB Final Report: Cirrus SR22

Aircraft Parachute System (CAPS) Was Deployed About 293 Ft Above Ground Level, Which Was Too Low To Allow For Full Deployment Of The Parachute System Analysis: The day before the a>[...]

Airborne Affordable Flyers 06.26.25: PA18 Upgrades, ‘Delta Force’, Rhinebeck

Also: 48th Annual Air Race Classic, Hot Air Balloon Fire, FAA v Banning 100LL, Complete Remote Pilot The news Piper PA-18 Super Cub owners have been waiting for has finally arrived>[...]

blog comments powered by Disqus



Advertisement

Advertisement

Podcasts

Advertisement

© 2007 - 2025 Web Development & Design by Pauli Systems, LC